The first real study of armed crime and firearms control was done by Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector, West Yorkshire Constabulary, in 1972, at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Greenwood was somewhat puzzled by the English firearms laws, because they did not appear to have any effect on crime, and very little study had gone into their creation. Firearms restrictions had been vigorously opposed before the First World War, on the grounds that they infringed on the rights of Englishmen to be armed for their own defense. The first significant English firearms law was passed in 1920.

How, then, should policy on firearms controls be affected by the facts produced? The system of registering all firearms to which Section I applies as well as licensing the individual takes up a large part of the police time involved and causes a great deal of trouble and inconvenience. The voluminous records so produced appear to serve no useful purpose. In none of the cases examined in this study was the existence of these records of any assistance in detecting a crime and no one questioned during the course of the study could establish the value of the system of registering weapons.

It was not until much later that Greenwood discovered the purpose of the English firearms registration laws. They were passed to facilitate firearms confiscation in the event of civil unrest or revolution. From Colin Greenwood, May 15, 2000. The term "Constitutionalists" below means British Constitutionalists:

Constitutionalists might argue about whether in Britain, Statute
law can over-ride the basic principles of the Common Law, but
in 1920 the Government of Britain was in fear of revolution and
documents such as the. Cabinet Diaries reveal debates about the
number of aircraft available for use against insurgents within
the British Isles. In that climate, the registration of firearms
(other than shotguns) was imposed for the purpose of “ensuring
that all arms are available for redistribution to friends of
the government”.

Extensive research by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm buttresses what Colin Greenwood found. From Guns and Violence, the English Experience, page 162:

Second, the Firearms Act of 1920, which took away the traditional right of individuals to be armed, was not passed to reduce or prevent armed crime or gun accidents. It was passed because the government was afraid of rebellion and keen to control access to guns.

Widespread door to door searches and confiscations of firearms did not happen in England and Wales for the purpose of turning those arms over to government supporters, though that was the initial purpose of the registration of firearms. Rather, the searches and confiscations occurred incrementally, over the last hundred years, as the government kept tightening requirements for ownership and made possession of arms ever more expensive and difficult. The decisions to impose more restrictions were often made in secret and not know to the public until long after the fact. Malcolm does an especially good job of documenting this process.

If someone tells you that the purpose of gun registration is crime control, that was never the case in England. Nor has gun registration ever been of any significant use as a crime control measure.

Colin Greenwood and Joyce Lee Malcolm are the two foremost scholars on firearms control in England and Wales. One can say, with considerable authority, that the purpose of firearms registration in England was always confiscation, even if it occurred incrementally over generations.

A jury in Ashville, North Carolina has found a man not guilty of taking a bear out of season, and of discharging a firearm in city limits, by reason of self defense. Ernest James Page had always claimed that he shot the 150-175 pound bear in self defense. The jury discussed the issue for over two hours, but unanimously agree with Page. It is significant that Page went to a jury trial, using a court appointed public defender, and won. The District Attorney justified charging Page with these remarks:

Moore said he has dismissed some cases in the past where a person felt
threatened and shot a bear, but they typically involved the person
making a call to law enforcement beforehand and asking for help. Moore
said Page did not do that and actually went inside his house with his
teenage daughter after spotting the bear, then returned with the rifle.

Ironically, Moore then stated that the Wildlife Commission needed to do something:

"I think the N.C. Wildlife Commission needs to look at doing something
about removing the bears in town, because it is getting to be too many,
and I do think they are dangerous at times," Moore said, noting he saw a
400-pound bear at his house over the summer.

Any bear that has become accustomed to people in an urban environment is a threat. It does no good to relocate such animals, as they have lost their fear of people and learned to associate people with food. The succinct phrase used by wildlife biologists is "a fed bear is a dead bear". While ignorant and anthropomorphizing neighbors complained about the bear being shot, Page may well have saved some child or older person from being severely mauled or killed.

The judge agreed to allow Ernest Page to ask for his rifle back after 30 additional days. Other than imposing another burden on the rifleman, it is hard to see the purpose of this delay, as the rifle has been in police hands for over a year. Page shot the bear on 7 October, 2013, with a 30-30 rifle.

Want to stop federal gun control but don’t know where to start?
Interested in solutions from the founding fathers? Looking for model
legislation to get things done? The new ShallNot handbook for
legislators and grassroots activists is the tool you need to protect the
2nd Amendment from federal abuse.

The ShallNot handbook serves as a guide to
how the states can preserve the Second Amendment whether the politicians
in Washington D.C., or the special interests that support them, want us
to or not.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Simply put, the federal government has no constitutional authority to restrict your right to keep and bear arms.

When the federal government places
any restrictions on firearms it not only violates the Second Amendment
but also the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So what can we do when the federal government won’t respect its own limits?

James Madison, often referred to as “The
Father of the Constitution,” wrote that when the federal government
commits an unwarranted act, such as infringing on the right to keep and
bear arms, or even a “warrantable act” that is simply unpopular, “the
means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” Madison went on to
outline several steps that states could take, including “refusal to
cooperate with officers of the union.” He also envisioned “legislative
devices, which would often be added on such occasions.”

In other words, Madison suggested that when
the federal government passes “laws” that infringe on the right to keep
and bear arms, the states should refuse to cooperate with
their implementation and enforcement, and pass legislation directing
its agencies and employees to refuse to lift a finger to assist the
federal government in any way. Madison’s strategy was to stand down when asked to help enforce federal gun laws, rules, orders or regulations.

Without state cooperation, the
practical effect of federal laws becomes severely limited. This is why
Judge Andrew Napolitano recently said that a single state refusing to
assist in the enforcement of federal gun laws or regulations would make
them “nearly impossible to enforce” in that state.

The federal government simply
doesn’t have the resources. And because of that, Madison’s advice not
only holds true today, it carries even more weight and more practical
impact than it did in his day.

By simply refusing to cooperate,
states can target and defeat unconstitutional federal gun “laws,” rules,
regulations and orders, preserving the Second Amendment, and protecting
the natural right of Americans to own firearms.

State legislatures in Kansas, Alaska and more recently Idaho have all taken steps to preserve the Second Amendment.

Idaho was the first state to pass what we consider a step-one bill into law, with Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signing S.1332 in
March 2014. The passage of Idaho’s law prohibiting state cooperation
with any future federal firearms acts set the stage beautifully for
further action in 2015 and beyond.

Idaho’s S.1332 should act as a model first step for states around the country in 2015.

We have developed model legislation for a
step-one bill that can be adapted for passage in any state. The bill
prohibits state cooperation with any future federal act relating to
firearms and stipulates penalties for state agencies/employees that
violate the state law.

Download the FREE 14-page ShallNot handbook at www.shallnot.org/plan and learn more about what YOU can do to help today.

The AP used to be a reliable disarmenter organization. John Lott documented how an AP editor edited out of the story, armed students who helped subdue a university shooter, at the Appalachian Law School. But this has been changing as the gun culture media has been able to document and challenge AP stories and procedures. AP has been feeling the heat.

It was with interest that I read this AP story, just before the election. It starts with a usual disarmenter passive construction:

The latest U.S. school shooting claimed the lives of two students and
the teenage shooter less than two weeks before congressional and
statewide elections. It barely made a ripple in the final days of
campaigning.

But notice that the second sentence mentions that the shooting has almost no effect on the campaigns. The article goes on to lament the inattention to "gun control", but it has significant balance. It mentions that opinions are divided on the issue, that there are two sides, and that candidates may face a price if they push for more gun control. This is an enormous change. Allowing that second amendment supporters have legitimate arguments is a death knell for disarmenters. They rely on emotion because they do not have rational arguments.

This isn't to say that the AP has become an organization that respects the Constitution and limited government. It has been forced to back away from a completely one sided position. However, anything less than a one sided position, and disarmenters lose. Notice how the passive voice is dropped, later in the article:

Gifford's latest appearance was in Seattle, just two days before a
15-year-old high school student shot and killed two people and himself
in an attack north of the city.

It is weird to see AP put forward the mentally challenged Gabby Giffords as the expert on disarmament. Giffords was not known as a disarmenter before she was shot in the head. It was only after she was severely mentally disabled that she became a full blown disarmenter under her husbands close guidance. I do not blame Gabby. It would be hard to argue that she really understands what is going on. The AP article not so subtly implies this by reporting on the difficulty that she has had in repeating a 64 word speech eight times in 10 days.

Giffords, who struggles with speech, stumbled as she delivered the same 64-word speech she had made eight times on her tour.

"Together, we can win elections," Giffords said before starting to stumble. After a moment of confused silence, an aide whispers the next line, and Giffords continued the broken sentence: "... change our laws."

AP probably feels that it is safe to use Gabby as an expert, as an attack on Gabby would be seen as an attack on a victim, a person who has already lost a great deal.

That would be true if second amendment activists were to attack Gabby. But they have no need to do so when they can simply point out how Gabby is being used by the disarmenters to further their cause. It is not an attractive position for the disarmenters to be in.

AP still attempts to smear the NRA as the big money machine, ignoring the millions spent by "progressive" billionaires such as former Mayor Bloomberg and Bill Gates. But they give a quote to the NRA, who talks about their millions of members.

Some might cynically say that the article is an attempt to suppress second amendment support, just before the election. Perhaps, but it can also be seen that the AP has been forced to move away from its historically harsh disarmenter stance. That is a good sign.

For those of you who do not know Gary Marbut, I can tell you about him. He is an activist who believes in the what he is doing, and he believes in restoring limits on government power. He is smart, dedicated, and a visionary. I wish that we had a hundred or a thousand of him running in Arizona. Maybe there are in the rest of the country.

I know of him as a second amendment activist. He is personally responsible for most of the reform that has been done in Montana firearms law. He virtually created the Montana Shooting Sports Association, built it up, made it into a potent political force in Montana, and pushed through the reforms of the last few years. He pushed for and got, constitutional carry for most of Montana, and came within a gnat's whiskers of getting it for the whole state.

He started the state nullification of federal firearms movement that has got laws passed in several states. His understanding of the state legislative process, where the levers of power are, and how to push them, are outstanding. He has written 64 bills that have been passed by the legislature.

Now he has a real chance to break through to inside the political machine. He is running in district 94, where he lives. Gary gives us an update here.

I would vote for Gary in an instant, if I lived in District 94. He is running as an independent, against an incumbent, disarmenter Democrat.

In Michigan, following the kidnap and murder of an Arkansas real estate agent, a number of women real estate agents are studying how to effectively control their guns in a deadly force situation. The person who is encouraging them is the petite, attractive, Shelley Gottschling, pictured above.

There is nothing particularly unusual about this. Firearm instructors have long noted the ability of women to become excellent shots, and the fact that women do not bring the macho baggage to the range that some men do. Shelley's mentor, however, notes that she is exceptional. From mlive.com:

"I haven't seen too many women who can handle a .45 like she can," says Ray Rocha, Gottschling's shooting mentor.

Since obtaining her concealed pistol license in May 2013, Gottschling has worked to improve her shot in an effort to feel more safe and prepared on the job. Now, in the wake of the kidnapping and slaying of an Arkansas real estate agent, she's encouraging other real estate agents to do the same.

What is noteworthy is that this article was published in mlive.com, a somewhat "liberal" mainstream publication. There is no obligatory disarmenter comments about how "she will have the gun taken from her and used against her" or the ever popular, and false "a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used against you than for self defense".

Those discredited bits of propaganda simply are not there. The underlying assumption has come much closer to reality. A gun in your possession increases your options, and can be used to save your life if you are threatened.

That is a sea change in the attitude of the old media. It did not happen overnight. It took 25 years of activism to force the old media to notice. There were 25 years of desperate struggle on the part of the gun culture before that, merely to prevent legislative annihilation, fighting defensive battles.

Today, the culture is in a different place. The gun culture has developed enough of its own media, that the old media has had to pay attention.

When petite Realtors preach the values of the .45 over the 9mm, and are published in mainstream publications, the gun culture is winning.

"Personally, I like the .45 because if I'm in a situation where someone
is banging on a door and I'm trapped, I have the confidence it can shoot
through that door," she said.

Accept that guns are legitimate for self defense, and the gun culture has won. Everything else is simply the details.

I was reading an unsigned disarmenter editorial in the yorkdispatch.com. As is common when a disarmenter does not have a real argument, I could not find a way to comment at the site. The editorial had some telling statements:

Gun laws tend to bring out the fanatic in some people.

These are smart folks who can be perfectly reasonable about other
issues. But mention common-sense legislation to curb gun violence, and
they start frothing at the mouth.

They'll tell you about their "cold, dead fingers" and how "only the
outlaws will have firearms" — and completely ignore the devastation guns
are causing in our communities.

The first statement is pure projection. The desire to disarm others does bring out the fanatic in a lot of people. The author of the editorial is a prime example. Then we have the non-argument, as if calling something "common-sense" makes it so. But the primary fallacy is in the last phrase:

"...the devastation guns
are causing in our communities."

This is simply a false assertion, with no proof behind it. Guns are not causing devastation in our communities. Guns do not cause things, yet this is the premise that the entire edifice of the disarmenters is built on. Let me repeat that statement. Guns. Do. Not. Cause. Things.

This is the same premise that guns are a "public health problem" is based upon. It is simply false.

I have talked to enough disarmenters to understand much of what they are thinking. They see that some bad things happen that involve guns. They say, if there were no guns, those bad things would not happen. Therefore, if we ban guns, those bad things will not happen.

Any high school student who studies logic can see the many logical flaws in that train of thought. "Bad things" happen with or without guns. Banning guns does not actually get rid of guns. Banning guns also reduces the good that comes from having guns.

There have been many legislative attempts to regulate firearms, from the severe restrictions in the UK, to many lesser attempts in the United States and other countries.

None of them have actually reduced "bad things" from happening. They have not even reduced "bad things with guns" from happening.

As increasing firearms controls were put in place in the U.K., overall homicides and gun crime increased, in spite of the controls. Let me quote Colin Greenwood, the Chief Inspector of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, in the first real study of Firearms Control, written in 1972. The quote is from the year 2000:

The ban on handguns
has been a total irrelevance and underlying crime trends have
continued unchanged now that only outlaws have guns.

In the United States, the success of the concealed carry movement has resulted in millions more people carrying guns on a daily basis. Yet crime rates have dropped in the same period. John Lott has done the primary research and written that more guns lead to less crime. That result is in dispute, though the studies seems to favor Mr. Lott. What is no longer in dispute is that more guns do not lead to more crime, yet that is the exact premise the entire disarmenter edifice rests upon.

To believe that premise, you have to believe a number of unlikely things. First, you have to believe that people will do bad things with guns that they would not do if they did not have guns. Essentially, you have to believe that "the trigger pulls the finger." This belief seems to be a mechanism to remove responsibility from human agency.

Second, you have to believe that no one uses guns to stop bad things from happening, because if that is true, then banning guns stops both good and bad things, and more bad things may happen with a gun ban than without one.

Third, you have to believe that a legislative ban will be effective in keeping people who are willing to do bad things from having access to guns.

Yet clearly, all of the above premises are false in the vast majority of cases.

It is easy to understand why disarmenters want to focus on disarming people. As they often do not have firearms themselves, they see no cost to themselves. It is easy to suggest that other people pay the cost of legislation. Concentrating on firearms relieves them of the responsibility for their own actions. The desire to avoid responsibility is a strong human motivation. As with many "simple solutions" to complex problems, disarming people is a false solution.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

No doubt it was merely a mental slip, but it is hard to make a gun law tougher than an outright ban, which is the current state of the law in the Northern Mariana Islands. From radionz.co.nz:

Lawmakers in the Northern Marianas are looking at enacting
legislation that will make it tougher for individuals to own handguns,
in the event a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Weapons
Control Act prevails.

The current law in the Northern Mariana Islands is a complete ban on the ownership of handguns. The ban is being challenged, in part, because of the Pertuta decision in the Ninth Circuit. Guam has already passed a shall issue concealed carry permit system because of the Peruta decision.

The ban in the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Palua, was passed when Micronesia was a single territory of the United States, in 1972. Correspondence with the former peace corps volunteer who wrote the law revealed that there was no problem with gun crime at the time. The law was passed purely as a precautionary measure, much like the highly restrictive gun ban in Australia was passed 24 years later. Hoplophobic fears of politicians are a bad reason to pass legislation that restricts whole peoples freedoms. The justification for the ban was that there was no "need" for the people to own guns, and especially, handguns.

It was the Chairman's view that the abuse of firearms was a serious problem in the United States, and that he did not wish it to become a problem in the Trust Territory, where there was no real need for firearms.

It seems likely that the court in the Northern Mariana Islands will strike down the ban on the ownership and carry of handguns.

“Walton was nominated as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by President George W. Bush in 2001,” USA Today chimed in. That background was also noted in stories appearing in “conservative” sites, creating the impression that, even if the decision may be unpopular in some circles, at least it reflects a spirit of bipartisanship, and what we can do when we put aside oue differences and work together.

What it actually reflects is the destructive effect of Stupid Party compromises, the “kinder, gentler” and “compassionate conservatism” that’s been at the squishy RINO core of the Bush family political dynasty, beginning with old man. And this isn't the first time Walton has shown the stuff he’s made of.

Emergency crews found a man lying in the front yard of a home in the
area suffering from a gunshot wound. Investigators said the man was
trying to break into a home when the homeowner shot him in the chest.

(snip)

There have been at least two other fatal home invasion shootings in recent weeks.

Capt. Brad Blackburn, chief of detectives, said Cracraft came to the apartment complex to visit his estranged wife, who was there with her boyfriend.

The boyfriend, who had a gun, called a friend who lived in the complex to come to help because he was afraid there would be a fight, Blackburn said. The friend has a concealed-weapons permit and took his gun with him when he went to the apartment, Blackburn said.

A fight broke out, and the friend of the boyfriend was hit in the head with a glass bottle, Blackburn said. Both men fired their weapons, Blackburn said.

The man, who has not been publicly identified, approached a man and a
woman as they walked out of a grocery store and snatched a gold
necklace from the woman’s neck, police said. The incident occurred
around 7:15 p.m. at the Aldi in the 3000 block of Forest Lane near Webb
Chapel Road.

The man knocked the woman to the ground and tried to rob her. The
woman’s husband, 71-year-old Ronnie Lummus, pulled out a handgun and
fired several shots at the man as he was attempting to flee in his car.
The man got in his car but died before fleeing, police said.

The woman deserves credit for picking up her companion and thinking under pressure.Video and eye witnesses confirmed the story.

Two men who were working inside the business when it happened said the suspect had walked into the store but then turned around and started shooting from the doorway at the man who was standing outside a car at one of the gas pumps.

The victim, who told police he had a concealed carry permit, reached for a handgun and started shooting back. After being hit by the gunfire, he tried getting into his vehicle but then ran toward a nearby access road. The victim then collapsed in a grassy area and was immediately picked up by the woman and they sped away.

This is an interesting case. Jeremy Sweet is not a rookie. He is 51 years old, close to retirement. He has been working at the Phoenix Police Department since July of 2007. He was transporting prisoners at the time of the incident, driving an unmarked police vehicle. Not only are the prisoners that he was transporting willing to testify to his actions, but at least one bystander called 911. There may be surveillance video as well. From azfamily.com:

"He did not get on his police radio," Crump continued. "He did not ask for assistance. He did not document this in any way. In fact, pulled up next to the vehicle, lectured the driver about their driving behavior while the gun was pointed at him, and continued on his way to the jail to perform his duties."

If an armed citizen who was not an officer did this, it is likely that they would be charged with aggravated assault under Arizona law. The police are asking that Jeremy Sweet be charged with aggravated assault.

Police are seeking one count of felony aggravated assault in the case.

Ubiquitous recording devices are working to make police live up to the same rules that everyone else is expected to follow.

Many comparisons have been made between the homicide rates of the the United States and various European countries. They have been made between members of the G-8, or among "developed" or "advanced" countries, or "economically developed" countries, though all of these comparisons suffer from various unstated assumptions, typically that "economic" development is the prime predictor of homicide rates, which clearly is not correct.

Here is a comparison of homicide rates among new world countries where the dominant or official language is English. This creates an interesting set of common characteristics. All of these countries were inhabited only by pre-Columbian immigrants a little more than 500 years ago. All of them were colonized by Europeans, Africans (as a result of the slave trade, in some form or another), and, to a much lesser extent, Asians. The current populations are now a significant mix of people descended from European, pre-Columbian new world, African, and Asian cultures. The pre-Columbian cultures were mostly destroyed and displaced over the last 500 years. The pre-Columbian languages have been mostly displaced by English in these countries. I was unable to find UNODC data for the Falkland Islands.

Interestingly, the greatest survival of pre-Columbian languages and cultures in these countries exists in Canada and the United States.

The chart shows the enormous problems with international comparisons of crime and homicide rates. Differences
in culture, data collection, and definitions make comparisons very
difficult, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. Culture is far more important than method or economic condition.

Consider one aspect of the law that is often linked to homicide rates, firearm regulation. The U.S. Virgin Islands is listed separately from the United States because it is listed separately in the UNODC data. Perhaps it is because the territory was only purchased by the United States in 1917. It and Belize are tied for the highest homicide rates of the countries listed. Both entities have extremely restrictive laws regulating the possession and carry of firearms. At the other end of the spectrum, we have Canada and the United States. The firearm laws in Canada are much less restrictive than those in the U.S. Virgin Islands or Belize. The firearm laws in the United States are the least restrictive of the group.

The comparison supports what other researchers have found. If firearms regulation has any effect on the overall homicide rate, it is not easily discerned from international comparisons.

In July, Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on the carry of weapons outside the home for self defense was unconstitutional under the second amendment. For a brief few days, the second amendment was respected in the District of Columbia. The judge granted a stay until 22 October, for the D.C. government to pass a new law that would meet constitutional requirements.

Both victims were tied up and left on the living room floor and the
suspect exited the home. Authorities say the daughter was able to free
herself and retrieve a handgun. As the mother attempted to lock the
door, the suspect fired a shot into the home and reentered. The daughter
and suspect fired numerous times at one another inside the residence,
authorities say.

Family members at the residence didn't wish to speak to the media, but
they told us that the homeowner is the father of a 9-year-old boy, and
he made the choice he felt necessary to protect his household--a
decision that locals say they understand.

"We have the right to
protect our castle, and we would," said Barbara Stubblefield. "I don't
see that well anymore, but I'd take the best shot I could get off."

Prosecutors said the off-duty officer was in a car when Tillman
approached and tapped on the car window with a gun. Tillman shot the
officer in the left hand and ran off when the officer fired a gun,
prosecutors said.

The officer apparently wounded Tillman, who showed up Advocate Christ
Medical Center in Oak Lawn with a gunshot wound later that day,
according to prosecutors. That’s the same hospital where the officer had
been taken for treatment.

The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question
-- the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: "Since you
brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a
police officer or a soldier in the head?"

If he wanted the standard political answer for these questions, it is found in the Declaration of Independence. The actual shooting started when the British crown attempted to confiscate arms and military stores from local governments.

But we do not need to look that far back in history. In 1946 local veterans took up arms against a corrupt local government in Athens, Tennessee, when the sheriff would not allow an honest vote, shot a man who tried to legally vote, and refused to give up power.

In just the last few years, there are three examples of people justifiably shooting at local police when they broke into their home in the middle of the night, without warning. It happened in Minneapolis in 2007, and twice again in Texas in 2013 and 2014.

So the answer is fairly simple, even for those "progressives" who worship state power. It is legitimate to oppose governmental force with force when the government refuses to be bound by the rule of law and when they threaten innocent life with illegitimate deadly force.

I do not see Paul Begala criticizing President Obama for giving aid to the rebels in Libya. The left has vigorously supported armed revolution, when they thought it advanced their agenda.

Begala set up a straw man in an attempt to demonize Joni Ernst, who is stating an obvious political truth that this country was founded on.

2nd Lt. Joshua Nelson was off duty when he intervened in a situation where a disturbed young man with a knife was threatening his mother. The officer used his concealed carry firearm to defuse the situation, and talk the man out of hurting anyone. Lt. Nelson said that he just used his military training. From laughlinaf.mil:

According to police reports, the young man
was mad at his mother, who he had a knife to, because she wouldn't buy
him a gun. Nelson told his wife Brittany to go alert the store manager
and call the police.

Nelson, who has a concealed weapons permit stepped up beside the woman.

"I put my hand on my pistol where he'd notice, and then I stepped in
between them," said Nelson. "I kept demanding he hand me the knife. I
wanted him to see only one option. As I was standing beside that lady, I
felt like I was responsible for her life. I was going to do whatever I
had to do to protect her."

Then, according to the police report, Nelson went from trying to stop a
murder to trying to stop a suicide when the assailant turned the knife
on himself.

Nelson pointed to his training and the Air National Guard and previously
in the Marine Corps as helping him talk the young man down.

Lt. Nelson was off duty when the incident occurred. As is clear from the reporting by the public affairs office of the 47th Flying Training Wing, a significant number of people understand that what this officer did reflects well on the United States Armed Forces.

What most people do not know, is that Lt. Nelson, and other officers, are forbidden from carrying a weapon when they are on active duty, at least 99 percent of the time. It is a policy that was formalized after the Ft. Hood shooting several years ago, though it had been in place for decades.

All of us would be better off if trained military personnel were allowed to carry self defense firearms in the regular course of their duties. It is a bizarre policy to forbid trained military officers from carrying arms.

"Sen. Nasheed, along with another male, entered the street, were told numerous times by not only by the St. Louis County commander, but other officers on scene, that they needed to leave the street or they were subject to arrest," St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman said. "They failed to comply, and they were taken into custody."

According to police accounts, Sen. Nasheed reeked of intoxicants, and upon booking and being formally charged with Failure to Obey Lawful Order of Police and Manner of Walking in the Roadway, she refused a breathalyzer. She has since commented that she was not drunk and that the whole thing was a "symbolic arrest":

"It was a symbolic arrest – sending a message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown, but we don't want it in vain," Nasheed said outside the jail Tuesday morning.

So the Senator's message to Ferguson protesters on how to protest "peacefully" involves what police describe as "intoxicants," carrying a loaded gun, and kneeling in front of traffic in the middle of a busy street and refusing to move?

The Senator told KMOV4 that she has a concealed carry permit, yet police seized her gun and the rounds upon her arrest. When KMOV4 asked Ferguson Police Officer Tim Zoll why the gun was taken if Nasheed had a permit, Zoll replied, "If she had a concealed carry permit, I'm sure she would have shown it to the officers."

These Arizona Rangers were gathered together in 1903. The rifles that I can identify are all 1895 Winchesters. In 1903 the total ranger force was 26 men. I count 25 in this picture. The Ranger Act of 1901 required that every ranger carry an 1895 Winchester and a Colt Single Action Army in .45 Colt. One Ranger, Private Lonnie McDonald, had been wounded in February of 1903, and he may not have yet recovered. I see a few possible gunbelts, but the angle is precisely wrong to see any holstered Colts. Picture from historynet.com.

In the recent terror attack on the Canadian Parliament, Members of Parliament (MP)s fashioned crude spears out of flagpoles. If such an event happened at the American Capitol, it is likely that members of Congress would have more effective weapons.

Members of Congress are restricted from bringing loaded guns into the Capitol, but they can have guns and ammunition in their offices. In a strange way, the bizarre gun laws of the District of Columbia make it difficult for members to transport the firearms into and out of the building. From rollcall.com:

Members of Congress and designated employees, acting on behalf of their
bosses, can bring unloaded guns into the Capitol. Inside the confines of
their offices, regulations set by the Capitol Police Board even allow
lawmakers to load the guns. However, carrying the guns through D.C.
without a gun license would violate local law.

“People took the flag poles with the maple leafs on the end – they’d
make pretty good spears – and said ok, if the son of a b***h is coming
through the doors we’re going to make him pay,” Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn
recalled Thursday.

There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is
not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one
who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe.... - Niccoló
Machiavelli, The Prince. 1537.

Moms Demand Action (MDA) disarmenters have threatened to make false 911 calls to police,and encouraged others to do so. In at least one case, perhaps more, an innocent man was killed by police as a direct response to false allegations in 911 calls. Last week, in Virginia, an open carrier was falsely accused of robbing a 7-11, in a 911 call. Fortunately, he was not harmed.

Here is his account, from Robert Dickens, as related to the Virginia Citizens Defense League, recounted at opencarry.org: (PVC stands for Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League)

On 10/15/14 at about 5:30 pm, I stopped at a 7-11 for some coffee in the skyline area of Fairfax.

Like every other day when I'm off work, I had hopped on my motorcycle
for a short ride . Being an open carry proponent, I didn't think twice
about putting on my every-day-carry pistol.

After leaving the 7-11, I went to the Verizon store for some quick
shopping. Both stores are within five miles of my home. Chores done, I
decided to go for a nice ride around the block.

Now I'm thinking that I've got my pistol on me and I’m asking myself how
I would feel if I were an officer pulling over someone who was armed?
[PVC: That is called “empathy,” something that normal, law-abiding
people have, but violent criminals lack.]

Ok, turn the bike off, straddle the bike, interlock your hands on your
head, and be calm. [PVC: Doing these steps calmly and slowly probably
helped send a clear signal to the SIX responding officers in FOUR patrol
cars that Robert was not a threat.]

As the officer gets out of his car, three other cars show up.

Wow, what did I do?

I let the first officer know that I have a firearm on my side. He says, "I know.” I did not move an inch!

To my surprise not one of the at least six police officers have a weapon
pointed at me. [PVC: Hats off to FCPD for their professional handling
of this situation! Robert’s life was not unnecessarily endangered
during the stop by the police pointing their guns at him.]

The officer walks up behind me and asks if he can take the weapon from my holster. “Yes, sir,” I replied.

"Do you have any other weapons on you, sir?”

“Yes, sir, a knife in my pocket.”

“Yes, sir. Why did you stop me?”

"I will get to that in a minute.” [PVC: Robert wisely decides to temporarily let the issue drop at this point.]

As I’m being frisked, I’m still not moving and am keeping my hands on my head.

"Sir, can I put my hands down now?,” I asked when the frisking was concluded.

“Yes, you can stand at ease.”

At this point I ask the officer what is going on.

“Well, we had a person call from 7-11 and they stated that a white guy on a motorcycle robbed the place.”

I laughed nervously and told the officer that I left a 7-11 30 minutes
ago, but that I didn't rob the place! [PVC: This is where an attorney
might advise the client to stop talking to the police for fear of saying
something innocent that ends up getting misinterpreted. To do so
properly, you must verbally indicate you are invoking the Fifth
Amendment and stop talking. In this case it’s hard to argue with
success, but one should be very, very cautious.]

I'm getting kind of angry now. I've heard of anti-gun people saying that
they will call the police if they see an open carrier and make up some
story to get the police to respond in a forceful manner.

Wow, I could have been killed!

Ten minutes later I'm on my way. With the police "checking the sanity of the caller.”

I put a call into the police station the following Monday and sent a email thanking FCPD for being very professional.

VCDL became involved and quickly put in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request into Fairfax County. They expeditiously received a recording of the 911 call, with the callers name and phone number blanked out. Here is a link to the audio.

Link to audio of 911 call. The audio file is 5:36 long and is well worth listening to. It appears that the caller is of diminished mental capacity. The 911 dispatcher tries to get details to substantiate what the caller is saying. The dangerous part is that the caller does get most things correct. He has a good description of Robert Dickens and his motorcycle. He has the correct location of the 7-11. It is just that the robbery that he describes never happened.

Just as clearly, the police seem to know this caller, and know that his calls are suspect. The problem is, of course, that he gets most things right, so there might be something substantive to the call. The fact that the officers did not draw their weapons on Robert shows that they were treading a middle road.

It also shows that MDA supporters that threaten and encourage false 911 calls are treading a very dangerous line. John Crawford III is dead, arguably because of false statements made on a 911 call. Another woman died in the panic induced by the call. Eric Scott, a West Point Grad, was killed by police in an incident in Las Vegas that may have resulted from bad information on a 911 call. Video tapes of the events of that shooting were never recovered. Other incidents of SWATting have occurred involving open carriers.

This is a bit personal, as supporters of MDA wrote that they would call 911 on me when no crime was committed; urged others to make false 911 calls, and even threatened me with death if they saw me openly carrying.

I will not allow this type of intimidation prevent me from exercising my rights. make no mistake, that is the purpose of the MDA supporters. They do not like people exercising their constitutional rights, so they resort to threats and bullying to stop them. They are generally too cowardly to make the threats in person, so they use their favorite means of oppression, the police power of the state.

The way to make this ineffective is to make it known. As more and more police become aware of these SWATting efforts, more and more false 911 calls will be prosecuted.

The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives are appealing a settlement in the case of Dobyns v United
States, a post by retired agent Jay Dobyns on the Clean Up ATF member forum announced Friday.
In September, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra
awarded Dobyns $173,000 and denied government royalty claims against
Dobyns for his book, "No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the
Inner Circle of the Hells Angels."

It is highly likely that Imura used the cartridges available for "Plug Firing Guns" to test his design concepts. If you look at the video of his "Zig Zag" revolver, it is clear that the muzzles are obstructed so that no projectiles could be fired.

This may be why Imura thought that he was not breaking the law. From gunmart.net:

Plug fire cap (PFC) ‘modelguns’ were designed to comply with strict
Japanese gun laws. The full metal models are made from zinc/alloy metal
and more modern models are made from special heavyweight plastic resins.
They are specifically designed to be totally impossible to convert into
real firearms.

Imura’s design was known as the ZigZag. Although his defense team
reportedly stressed that he designed in a plate to stop the weapons
being fired, prosecutors said the plate was easily removed.

It appears that the trial revolved about the question of how easily it would be to convert the printed models to fire actual cartridges. I have not read of any actual test firing to show that the practicality of the action.

The Japanese legal system has sent a clear message. Imura's real crime was in challenging the idea that a disarmed population is desirable or practical.

The open carry march in St. Louis went off without a hitch on Saturday, 25 October. In stark contrast to unruly and violent Ferguson demonstrators, the open carry marchers, who celebrated the restoration of constitutional rights under the newly passed amendment 5, were polite, considerate, peaceful, and had no violent interactions with the police. From stltoday.com, a counterprotestor complained:

Counterdemonstrator Tef Poe, of Hands Up United and the Organization of Black Struggle, said the calm police reaction was in contrast to police behavior at protests in Ferguson.“When we protest in a similar manner, without guns, they proceed with aggression and arrest,” Poe said.

Except, as anyone who has watched the news knows, the Ferguson protesters have not protested in a manner that is very similar at all. A commenter, GeronL at freerepublic.com made the following point:

So AI protests people shot by cops, while demanding that only cops carry guns??

Same way the unionistas complain they were locked out of the state
capitol building in Michigan while open carry advocates were allowed to
walk around in the building with impunity.

The difference being that the open carry advocates weren’t screaming,
hollering, kicking doors and trying to disrupt state business.

This is what you see in open carry marches everywhere. Open carriers are exemplars of good citizens. When people see it, they recognize it. That attracts more activists to open carry marches, and the movement continues to expand around the country.

Dogs and guns have been an effective crime stopping combination for as long as people have possessed them. They were proven effective once again in Butler County, Ohio. The suspect broke out a basement window to gain access to the rural home of Brian Hiner. Brian woke to the alarmed barks of his dogs, which appear to black and golden Labradors. He then heard the intruder coming up the basement stairs, called the sheriff, and held Michael Roberts, pictured above, at gunpoint for the responding deputies.

The deputies arrived, and took Roberts into custody. Somehow, Roberts managed to escape the deputies vehicle while Brian was being interviewed. The suspect fled into a nearby cornfield.

A few hours later, 15 year old, Justin Kugler was home alone, sick, when he heard his dogs start barking. He armed himself and looked downstairs, just in time to see Roberts enter the house. Justin is on the left in the screenshot above. From 14news.com:

"I was home sending an email to my teachers about homework when my dogs started barking and I looked out the window but I didn't see anybody there so I went to the top of the stairs with the gun to make sure there wasn't anybody downstairs and then that's when the door opened and I saw him," said Justin Kugler.

Kugler says he was pretty scared because he noticed Roberts had a knife on him, but he was armed and ready for Roberts at the top of the stairs.

"I told him to get out of the house or I'm going to shoot you," said Justin Kugler.

Roberts was taken back into custody just after he exited the Kugler home.

Dogs and guns are a powerful defensive combination that is hard to overcome. Just as important is a community that trusts the local peace officers to form a cooperative network. Local residents are the front line, while the sheriff's deputies form the rapid response team and communications network. In communities that trust their local criminal justice system, the crime rates are very low. Sheriffs, as elected officials, tend to be responsive to their constituents.

In Pennsylvania, an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit stopped an attempted robbery. This has become a fairly common occurrence. The interesting thing about this incident is the response from Police Lt. Todd Unstead. 20 years ago, we often heard police give the advice that "citizens should not take the law into their own hands" or that they should "leave police work to the professionals". That response is heard far less often today.

One pointed a gun at a 25-year-old city man
and tried to rob him, but he retrieved his own gun from his car and
pointed it at the robber, city police Lt. Todd Umstead said Friday.

After the police caught the suspected criminals, Lt. Unstead gave this advice:

Umstead said he couldn’t give a “one size fits all” recommendation about when victims should retrieve their own gun during an incident.

It depends on the situation and the individual, he said.

“In this incident, the victim was absolutely justified in taking the action that he did, and was able to successfully thwart the robbery without anyone getting hurt,” Umstead said. “Anyone in that situation has to realize, however, that there is obviously a risk involved in fighting back against an armed assailant, particularly one who has a gun pointed at you.”

It is good advice. Assess the risk and make the call. Each incident is different. Individuals who take a chance to stop crime make us all safer, and should be rewarded by society.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

A poster at opencarry.org, Southern Covenanter, recounts an ironic experience in Charlotte, North Carolina. From opencarry.org:

I made it a point to stop and meet my parents for lunch in Pineville
while I was passing through town, and after I left, I stopped at the QT
on Woodlawn Road (right off I-77 where Woodlawn turns into Billy Graham
Parkway) to gas up the Blue Bullet. This QT is in a somewhat sketchy
part of town, so I was already on high alert when I pulled up to the
pump. About the time I got the Bullet in park, I noticed three young men
walking through the islands towards the store. One of the three was a
younger white guy (about 6'1", 175 lbs, and all tatted up) was
shirtless, loud, high as a Georgia pine, and clearly acting
aggressively. I took note of him, and strolled inside to pre-pay for my
gas. Lo and behold, when I got inside, some yuppie soccer Mom type wear a
"Moms Demand Action" t-shirt spotted me and the sidearm on my hip and
immediately started ranting about how I was dangerous and scary, that my
big, bad SigSauer made her nervous, how did she know I wasn't going to
shoot everybody in the joint, etc. I did my best to ignore her, hit the
latrine, and came back out and paid for my gas.

While I was walking to the door, I noticed the doped up potential
troublemaker was waving his arms around, beating on his chest and
flinching at people like he was going to throw a punch while yelling,
"I'ma f* you up! Y'all don't want none!" and so on.

I walked out the door to head to the car, and when I did, the Mom's
Demand nutjob approached from my right and quietly asked, "Would you
walk me to my car?"

My response: "I'm sure that loud mouth of yours will keep you safe."

The shocked look on her face was completely worth it.

OC: 1. Moms Demand: 0.

The poster then goes on to explain that he briefly considered acceding to the request, but having information that the the local chief LEO was anti-open carry, and concerned that the clerk might misunderstand a "walk to the car" because of the previous rant by the woman, he decided against it.

Another poster mentioned that Moms Demand Action supporters have encouraged others to make, and have said that they would make, false 911 calls.

My instinct would have been to walk her to the car. People with phobias can overcome them with experience. However, I can easily understand his reluctance in the circumstances.

If you look at the chart below created by ABC, the United States seems to be an
outlier. No data is given for Russia, and the Y axis
mentions that it is only for gun related homicides. The large header leaves out the word "Gun". These are serious
clues that the chart is designed to mislead.

Only
looking at gun related homicides is a clear case of data selection
bias. It does not matter to a homicide victim if they are killed with a
gun, a machete, poison, or a violent mob. They are still
dead. Firearms, of course, may be used for defense as well as attack, so restrictions could increase as well as decrease homicides. Attempting to restrict one method may simply result in a substitution of methods. You need to look at the totals to see if there is a
net increase or decrease in homicides.

There are enormous problems with international comparisons. Differences
in culture, data collection, and definitions make comparisons very
difficult, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. Culture is far more important than method or economic condition. Why chose the G8
countries, instead of say, New World countries, or geographically large,
ethnically diverse, countries? You could as easily make the case that Brazil, Mexico, the United States, and Canada should be grouped together, as that of G8 countries.

Here is a chart showing homicide rates for all the countries of the world that we have data for.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

When confronted by an armed criminal, common advice for an armed citizen has been to evaluate the threat. If complying with the criminal, such as giving them money, a cell phone, or other items, is evaluated as low risk, it may be best to comply. The evaluation is often stated something like this: Does it appear that your assailant is going to seriously harm or kill you, or do you believe that they will simply leave?

If you believe that they are going to kill you in any case, then pick your best chance of resistance and act.

Ticas told officers that two black men wearing masks had walked into
the store. One of them held up the customers in the back at the game
machines and the other pointed a gun at Ticas and demanded money.

Ticas gave him money but was unable to comply with the next order, to open the safe.

“He stated the male told him if he did not get the safe open he was going to die,” the report said.

Ticas managed to get a gun from the counter and began to fire, striking one of the men police later identified as Wood.

During the ensuing gunfight, two customers were hit, one in an arm, the other in the abdomen by a bullet that penetrated a wall. The one robber, Wood, was hit in the head and required emergency surgery. Ticas was not injured, and it is likely that the other robber will be apprehended.

While two innocent people were wounded in this incident, it is impossible to know if they would have been shot if there were no resistance. Armed resistance increases the cost of armed robbery. To paraphrase John Lott; More Resistance, Less Crime.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat